1. Have fun with that. New definition: selling out happens as soon as you let anyone hear you playing your instruments. When I start making music I’m just going to imagine it playing inside my head.
2. I agree, but audiences can change the context of art they consume. Instead of listening to this music in a theater while watching vampires they could listen to it in their cars or bedrooms or whatever. If the Tweenlight association is the only thing that’s distasteful about this album then just break that association.
3. Correcting people’s grammar on the internet is pretty cool. While we’re on the pedantic train, your list has two entries for the number four.
4. 5 minutes of internet research tells me that Scott McCloud also wrote something called the “Creator’s Bill of Rights”, which includes at number 8 this:
“The right to prompt payment of a fair and equitable share of profits derived from all of our creative work.”
I’m not sure if “creative work” and “art” are the same thing, but they would have to be at least related. He seemed pretty keen on getting paid for it either way.

1. Selling out happens the moment you step out of the garage and give your creation to the world. When I start laying down tracks, we’re going to set the tapes on fire as soon as we’re done putting material on them.

2. Nothing exists devoid of context. Separating a thing from it’s context is like separating a raccoon from its tail.

3. Please use an apostrophe to indicate possession in future comments. (As in: Grizzly Bear’s audience)

4. The art as expression that has no direct gain thing is not mine. It comes from Scott McCloud’s work examining graphic art. I use it because citing relevant sources adds credibility to one’s argument. I apologize for not referencing it directly.

4. Dialogue is the most interesting part of having a “web log.” Please keep reading and poking us in out soft parts.

Also, I don’t think that its fair to say a certain type of artistic endeavor must be matched to the “correct” audience to make that artistic endeavor important or valuable or whatever. “Grizzly Bears audience” is the subset of people who have heard Grizzly Bears music. They may not be “Grizzly Bear fans” but if bands aren’t allowed to play their music to people who haven’t already heard their music…

It was you who asked the question “What is the cost for Grizzly Bear or their artistic merit?” and I would argue that you are in a position to answer that question just by listening to the music. “Selling out” does not happen automagically when an artist gets paid for their art, it happens when they start tailoring their art to make sales. So, listen, evaluate, decide. Not decide, evaluate, listen.

(unless Grizzly Bear have started writing power chord songs about vampires, relax, all the new songs will probably be ace to listen to completely removed from their pasty, bloodsucking context).

You’ve already agreed to the idea that teenagers listen to and watch “dreck.” If this is the case, what puts them in a proper position to accurately evaluate and digest work for artistic value? You’re flying around without a map if you think 99.9 percent of these children will critically approach any of the tracks on this soundtrack. This is what draws my ire specifically. Nothing connects or points to an audience that matches up with artistic endeavors. This is all about money and sales, Lachy. Thom Yorke has a track on here.I suppose the t-shirts weren’t getting it done. YOU may be able to listen to art the way it’s intended (I’d imagine that’s why you’re reading us in the first place) but the audience this soundtrack is marketed towards is not Grizzly Bear’s audience. They are consumers and tweens, the biggest and most economically attractive segment in America. This pairing is what I disagree with. Why showcase their art on this particular platform if it’s indeed all about the music?

Everyone else is allowed to work paying jobs, why not artists?

In this particular case I think I would prefer that they didn’t-at least through this way specifically. I will agree with you that many teenagers digest garbage art-wise, but this is unfortunately often because they fall prey to marketing of said trash. Does a heavy-hitting artistic soundtrack make up for the fact that it is used to push a marketing machine? I think it’s a problem. For the tweens who hear Grizzly Bear on this soundtrack, sure, they’ll get great music. What is the cost for Grizzly Bear or their artistic merit, however?

Pick any teenage cult movie. Do you remember the music tracks for their artistic worth, or for the film-associations that you make? The Crow’s soundtrack years ago was amazing. However, whenever I hear a single song off of it, I think of the movie. I find this problematic for bands. I think, for certain bands, this is an okay motive. It’s all in where they choose to diplay their art. For some of this lineup, however, I wouldn’t have expected it. Drops them down a notch in my book. Not everything needs to be for sale.

Would you prefer that they didn’t?

Good points, and actually I first saw Kings of Leon on The OC and loved that. To me, it’s not about whether or not they wind up on TV or on a soundtrack. I think it’s more WHAT show and WHAT soundtrack they’re on.

Art Brut on Gossip Girl last night is questionable in my opinion haha. I guess sometimes it’s probably out of their control anyway. Shouldn’t be out of their hands at the indie level though.

My music knowledge/interest started with The OC. I really liked the music I heard on that show and since then I REALLY started listening to music. Not because it’s on the show, but because it IS good music. Music is my biggest interest now and yes, it started with The OC and I thank the show for that. Twilight will do the same with lots of kids too, nothing wrong with that, I think.
The one thing I really HATE is that when bands get big exposure, the gig-tickets get doubled.